Related Posts (Automatically Generated)

I really applaud the Indiana legislature for making manufacturers collect and be responsible for the disposal of their e-waste in our state.

But I wonder if a few cents per pound for a fine to the company who doesn't comply with collecting e-waste will be enough encouragement to redesign their products. R&D costs a lot.

As your discussion mentioned, getting a law passed was a challenge and certain compromises have to be made. I would expect that as data is collected that if it shows manufacturers are favoring paying a fine rather than redesigning their products to be more recyclable that the law could potentially be strengthened.

I'm very familiar with how one manufacturer — Apple — has redesigned their products so that they contain far less toxins, are made of more easily recyclable materials like aluminum and glass, and have less bulky packaging with recycled packing. The redesign and perhaps easier recycled metals instead of cheap plastics may add to the cost of manufacturing. I hope more consumers take environmental impacts of one company vs. another at time of purchase, even if the more environmental product costs a bit more.

On the issue of standards, I did phone Scott and asked him what standards the Solid Waste Management division adheres to, explaining my concern about export and mishandling of toxic materials. He said that although they are not certified in any of the standards (R2 or e-Stuwards), they have been doing e-waste collection since before the standards were developed and by enlarge those considerations have already been incorporated.

For example, as far as export, he said they know who all the downstream vendors are that handle the e-waste sent to them and how they handle the materials. He said it's virtually impossible for none of the material to be exported because there are some materials that simply cannot be recycled in the United States. But they certainly don't contract with vendors who export whole products.

I urged him that if they do decide to get certified in one of the e-waste standards that they choose e-Stewards over R2 because, from what I have read, the R2 standards were developed by manufacturers to their benefit, while the e-Stewards standard is more strict in exporting and handling of e-waste.

I really applaud the Indiana legislature for eventually making manufacturers collect and be responsible for the disposal of their e-waste in our state.

But I wonder if a few cents per pound for a fine to the company who doesn't comply with collecting e-waste will be enough encouragement to redesign their products. R&D costs a lot.

As your discussion mentioned, getting a law passed was a challenge and certain compromises have to be made. I would expect that as data is collected that if it shows manufacturers are favoring paying a fine rather than collecting e-waste and redesigning their products to be more recyclable, then the penalties could potentially be strengthened.

I'm very familiar with how one manufacturer — Apple — has redesigned their products so that they contain far less toxins, are made of more easily recyclable materials like aluminum and glass, and have less bulky packaging with recycled materials. I suppose the redesign and perhaps use of aluminum and glass instead of cheap plastics may add to the cost of manufacturing. I hope more consumers take environmental impacts of one company vs. another in account at time of purchase, even if the more environmental product costs a bit more.

On the issue of standards, I did phone Scott and asked him what standards the Solid Waste Management division adheres to, explaining my concern about export and mishandling of toxic materials. He said that although they are not certified in any of the standards (R2 or e-Stuwards), they have been doing e-waste collection since before the standards were developed and mostly those considerations have already been incorporated.

For example, as far as export, he said they know who all the downstream vendors are that handle the e-waste sent to them and how they handle the materials. He said it's virtually impossible for none of the material to be exported because there are some materials that simply cannot be recycled in the United States. But they certainly don't contract with vendors who export whole products.

I urged him that if they do decide to get certified in one of the e-waste standards that they choose e-Stewards over R2 because, from what I have read, the R2 standards were developed by manufacturers to their benefit, while the e-Stewards standard is more strict in exporting and handling of e-waste.

I'm glad I don't have to wait until a once a year opportunity to have my e-waste be processed in the best way.

Stay Connected

What is RSS? RSS makes it possible to subscribe to a website's updates instead of visiting it by delivering new posts to your RSS reader automatically. Choose to receive some or all of the updates from Noon Edition: